Li v. The Siegel Group, Inc.

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Yi Li, Case No. 2:25-cv-01342-CDS-BNW 5 Plaintiff Order Accepting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 6 v. 7 The Siegel Group, Inc., [ECF No. 10] 8 Defendant 9 10 Pro se plaintiff Yi Li commenced this action by filing a complaint along with an 11 application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. Because Li sought to proceed in forma 12 pauperis, U.S. Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler screened the complaint. Upon screening, Judge 13 Weksler dismissed the complaint, giving Li leave to amend by March 10, 2026. ECF No. 3. The 14 deadline passed without Li filing an amended complaint. Judge Weksler then issued a report 15 and recommendation (R&R) that I dismiss this action because plaintiff failed to comply with 16 the court-ordered deadlines to amend and failed to update their address. R&R, ECF No. 10. 17 Li had until April 27, 2026, to file any objections to the R&R. Id. at 3 (citing Local Rule IB 18 3-2(a) (stating that parties wishing to object to an R&R must file specific written objections 19 with supporting points and authorities within fourteen days)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 20 (same). Li has neither objected to the R&R nor requested more time to do so. And “[n]o review 21 is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” 22 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 23 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 Although de novo review is not required, I nonetheless made an independent review of 25 the record to determine whether to adopt the R&R. The record demonstrates that Li failed to 26 amend by the court-ordered deadline. Moreover, Li’s mail was returned as undeliverable on three occasions (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9), and Li still has not updated their address as ordered or as required by the local rules. See ECF No. 7. Given Li’s failure to comply with the court’s orders, Judge Weksler considered the dismissal factors discussed In re Phenylpropanolamine Product 4|| Liability and found they weighed in favor of dismissal. ECF No. 10 at 2 (citing 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006)). I agree. This action cannot proceed without an operative complaint and a party’s failure to comply with a court order constitutes grounds for dismissal under Federal Rule 7|| of Civil Procedure 41(b); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“the district 8|| court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”). 9 Furthermore, this litigation cannot proceed without the plaintiff's participation. Because Li has failed to update their address, issuing another order is not a meaningful alternative. Carey ll] v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (“An order to show cause why dismissal was not 12] warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.”). So Lagree that no lesser sanctions are available because the 14] court cannot contact Li to communicate or implement any alternative measures. I therefore 15] accept the R&R in its entirety and dismiss this matter. 16 Conclusion 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF 18|| No. 10] is accepted and adopted in its entirety. This case is dismissed. 19 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter ing accordingly and close this case. 20 Dated: May 4, 2026 LZ 21 Sf 4 Cristing/D. Silv 22 Uni tol States District Judge 23 fo 24 25 26